^^
Would that create a situation for the present PA residents? I mean would they become refugees or walled in their camps without access to descent human rights to tends one's land or simply go to school? Would their dwellings be raised down so some settlers can claim their Biblical rights? Who would absorb the rest of the refugees that could not manage to hang on to a property or could not squeeze into a refugee camp? Will Maryland, NJ, Ohio, NY.. or even Canada offer them full citizenship so they can go on with their lives? Will they have a right to return if PA is to be split into one Ibrahamic religious state and one into a founder's state?

I have to agree with QBN, your avatar, at quick glance looks a lot like a syphilitic gash with little eyes. Just basically unattractive, even repulsive. And I get the same reaction no matter how many times I focus on it and figure out what it is, every time I see it. Basically it is irritating to have to look carefully and figure out what it is - it might actually be less irritating if it was a shot of a syphilitic gash. Jim

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

The basis of our nation is that the decisions relating to policy are to be debated in a public forum, voted on and adopted or rejected based on the merits of the debate. There has been no debate on this subject. It would be healthy to have a real debate, like it would have been healthy to have a genuine debate on the subject of invading Iraq before we did it.

So, based on the track record, I am not willing to assume the elected officials can create competent policy without the intended process of the Constitution. This is as true for domestic policy, such as the bail-out, as it is for foreign policy. It is about as un-American as possible to promote policy making outside the procedure dictated by our Constitution. Without visibility, it is very difficult to establish whether or not the best interests of the United States actually were at the forefront of a policy created without debate and "transparency."

Drew makes a case for Israeli influence behind the lack of openness on the subject of our US-Israeli policy. I am not as clear on the subject - I heard a pretty good case for why the religious right wants Israel around on Bill Maher's show - no Israel, no home for the Jews, no place for Jesus to return to do away with the Jews per some chapter of the Bible. Makes as much sense to me as AIPAC.

Jim

When are the Supreme's going to declare all closed door meetings, face to face sessions, dealmaking illegal ?